Pages

Sunday, 17 August 2014

It’s been a long time in the making, but today marks the public
launch of a new web project aimed at informing people about health care
professionals who object to or refuse to provide reproductive health services,
like contraception, abortion, non-directive and non-biased counselling, pharmacy products and so on.

Called My Decision/Kei a au te Whakataungathe site grew out of failed efforts to get
the people who should be doing the job of keeping patients informed, such as
the Medical Council of New Zealand, to do it. There’s a lot of background about
the long road travelled on this issue here in Aotearoa New Zealand over at Alranz’s blog, but this is broader than abortion rights (and not an Alranz project, though
they’re supporters. By way of probably obvious disclosure, I’m involved in this
project).

Below, you’ll find the media release that went out this morning, and
at the end of this post, a couple of interesting links to recent discussion about the issue of conscientious
objection/refusal to treat/conscientious obstruction (supporters of reproductive
justice are coming up with some interesting ways of describing whatever this
is).

My Decision. Kei a au te Whakataunga.

www.mydecision.org.nz

MEDIA RELEASEFOR
IMMEDIATE RELEASE

17 August 2014

NEW WEBSITE LISTS DOCTORS WHO OPPOSE
CONTRACEPTION

A new grassroots project aimed at
sharing information about doctors and other medical professionals who hinder
reproductive health-care access because of moral or religious reasons is being
launched today online.

Called My Decision/Kei a au te
Whakataunga (www.mydecision.org.nz), the project invites people
seeking services like contraception or abortion to report any experiences of
hostile or unhelpful health professionals to the website.

But the site is not just for
patients. My Decision spokesperson Terry Bellamak said organisers were also
inviting doctors and others who “conscientiously object” to some services to list
what options they do and do not offer.

“From the standpoint of consumer
protection, it makes no sense to keep potential patients in the dark about
their health care providers’ intentions. ‘Conscientious objectors’ who agree
can demonstrate their good faith by registering on our site,” she said.

Ms. Bellamak said the project, which
has been a year in the making, was sparked in part by the 2010 court judgment
that expanded conscientious objection rights of doctors, and the Medical
Council’s subsequent decision not to mount a challenge, nor to publish doctors’ conscientious objection status on their website.

I suggest a similar list for religious bodies that reject same sex marriage. That would make it much easier for gay couples to target the particular churches that are not prepared to carry out what is a legal activity.

FYI, please follow the comment rules and if you are anon, use some kind of handle. @anonymous Aug 20, I most certainly agree that any targeting or pressuring particular groups or individuals with respect to reproductive health care is not on. I know pro-choice groups spoke out against, for example, the Govt plan to target long-acting contraception at, in particular, daughters of people on benefits. Obviously trolls with agendas can be an issue at a site like MyDecision, but the ethos of the site is, per the name, that the decision should be up to the individual person / that the individual has their own solution, without pressure either way. As @K suggests, if this has happened to you, the site has a link to the Health and Disability Commissioner's formal complaints page, but obviously feel free to report to the site. (The focus is on first-person stories, rather than people reporting other people's stories, fyi.)